by Winter Patriot
Derrick Shareef, about whom I wrote last Friday, wanted to be a "terrorist" so badly he couldn't see any of the signs that he was being set up, and he may spend the rest of his life in prison for his lack of ... what? ... awareness? discretion? common sense? ... or all of the above?!
Big Dan, who makes frequent and very funny comments at my blog, has taken to calling Derrick Shareef the "Air Grenadist", following a suggestion from Bluebear2, another regular and very funny commentor. It's a variation on the term "Air Guitarist", which of course refers to a person pretending to play a guitar that isn't there.
charged with a crime which, had it taken place, would have involved
weapons which -- according to some of the early news reports -- he
never managed to obtain. However, according to an affadavit filed in
the case, Shareef did obtain "weapons" (just before he was arrested),
but they wouldn't have worked for him! So either he was playing an air
guitar or else his guitar had no strings on it!
How do I know this? It's a long story, but I'll tell it as quickly as I can.Add a comment
The influence of homosexual activists within the nationâ€™s educational system continues to grow, altering the attitudes of children and teens toward the acceptance of a destructive and depraved lifestyle.
Often without parental knowledge, local schools are instituting policy changes that not only promote respect for homosexuality, but often even celebrate it. â€¦ [italics added]
WASHINGTON -- There were unconfirmed reports yesterday that the United States is not the center of the world.Add a comment
The White House had no immediate comment on the reports, which set off a firestorm of controversy in the nationâ€™s capital.
Speaking on background, a high-ranking official at the State Department discounted the possibility that the reports would turn out to be true. â€œIf that were the case,â€ he said, â€œdonâ€™t you think we would have known about it a long time ago?â€
On Capitol Hill, leaders of both parties were quick to rebut the assertion. â€œThat certain news organizations would run with such a poorly sourced and obviously slanted story tells us that the liberal media are still up to their old tricks, despite the current crisis,â€ a GOP lawmaker fumed. A prominent Democrat, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said that classified briefings to congressional intelligence panels had disproved such claims long ago.
Add a comment
"That invasion, less than eight months before Iraq invaded Kuwait, was condemned by the UN General Assembly," explains former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. "No action was taken, although the United States violated all the international laws later violated by Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, plus a number of Western Hemisphere conventions and the Panama Canal Treaties."
Only Six Fluent in Arabic at U.S. Embassy in Iraq (Reuters)This tells you pretty much all you need to know about the American debacle in Iraq. Imagine the arrogance and stupidity of conquering, occupying and trying to run a country without being able to speak its language. A nation of 26 million people â€“ and your embassy has only six people who can actually understand what is being said, written, and broadcast there. This is a folly that amounts to a monstrous crime in itself, aside from the inherent evil of launching an unprovoked war of aggression.
Among the 1,000 people who work in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, only 33 are Arabic speakers and only six speak the language fluently, according to the Iraq Study Group report released on Wednesday.
[Note to Readers: For those of you who want a provocative and fascinating background overview of the ever-roiling crisis in the Middle East at this perilous moment, here's a Tomdispatch.com recommendation. Don't miss the just published book-length conversation between Noam Chomsky and Lebanese scholar Gilbert Achcar, Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy.]
Add a comment
Right now, we have on the table a "possible exit strategy" from Iraq -- James A. Baker's Iraq Study Group report -- that, once you do the figures, doesn't get the U.S. even close to halfway out the door by sometime in 2008; and that report is already being rejected by the Republican and neocon hard right; by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who continues to plug for some form of "victory" ("The enemy must be defeated...") on his last lap in Iraq, while still flaying the media for only reporting the "bad news"; by a President who is still on the IED-pitted road to success ("Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail..."), has called for three other reviews of Iraq policy (by the Pentagon, National Security Council, and White House) in an attempt to flood Washington with competing recommendations, and is probably on the verge of "surging" 15,000-20,000 more U.S. troops into Baghdad.
All sides in this strange struggle in Washington would add up to so much political low comedy if the consequences in Iraq and the Middle East, the oil heartlands of our increasingly energy-hungry planet, weren't so horrific. As Andrew Bacevich, historian, former military man, and author of The New American Militarism, wrote recently in the Boston Globe, Iraq's many contradictions "render laughably inadequate the proposals currently on offer to save Iraq and salvage American honor. Dispatch a few thousand additional US troops into Baghdad? Take another stab at creating a viable Iraqi army? Lean on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to make â€˜hard decisions?' One might as well spit on a bonfire."